NRA Backed SHARE Act Passes Committee

Amp Mangum

Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2016
Messages
3,189
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Is this THE Hearing Protection Act we're all waiting for?
yes, and access to public lands for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting
 
Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and I hate when the two are intermingled. It undermines the 2nd.
Is this THE Hearing Protection Act we're all waiting for?
I agree that hunting and the 2nd-A being intermingled is not a good approach. This bill looks like it mostly addresses (gun) hunting issues, including ones that strengthen the 2nd overall, such as eliminating the "sporting" provision / requirement for ammunition. It also included the hearing protection act, getting rid of the prohibition on suppressors if I'm reading it right:
The bill secures access to Federal public lands for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting and includes the Hearing Protection Act (HPA). The HPA is an important safety-oriented aspect of the bill that will help protect the hearing of America’s hunters by eliminating expensive and excessive regulations on suppressors. Other key provisions include:

  • Securing the future of hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting by increasing access to federal public lands.
  • Reforming of the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA), which protects the lawful, legal transport of unloaded firearms.
  • Strengthening protections for carrying firearms on land managed by the Army Corps of Engineers.
  • Removing the undefined and antiquated “sporting purposes test”, which opens the door to arbitrary ammunition bans.
  • Returning wildlife management of the gray wolf back to states adversely affected by rising populations.
 
If I remember correctly previous other Sportsman Heritage Act bills usually get some "environmentalists" hate but have had excellent success passing ... this one will be very interesting. Kinda ironic that House Majority Leader McCarthy is from California but a Conservationist and conservative who's district has leaned Republican the last 2 presidential elections. I can't see him not getting Ryan to bring this before the House ... getting the votes to pass is another thing. If it makes Senate McConnell should be good with but again getting the votes ... especially those needed from Dummicrats crossing lines is not going to be easy.

I wish all those less informed could see the real truth about suppressors are NOT silencers ... just a muffler like on a car.
 
Is this THE Hearing Protection Act we're all waiting for?

They rolled it into a Sportsmans bill because mod Dems can't vote against sportsman bills. Or at least don't have a history of it. Great idea IMO. Even if hunting and 2A are only marginally related I do feel they go hand in hand. I just don't feel it's the exclusive reason for it by any means. I like to hunt, and I like to hunt with guns. It's one of the reasons I own them.
 
Sounds like to me that there's something in there for everyone. Ranges on public land (BLM) (and I don't mean Black Lives Matter) If any of you guys have lived out west you know that almost any open land is BLM controlled so I read this as a very good thing for hunters, fishermen AND shooters. I'll agree there's not much in there for the self defense/2A crowd but we have to take back our rights, one brick at a time, the same way they were taken away....
 
Last edited:
BB it's does help the 2A in that bill includes a strengthening of the Firearms Owners Protection Act the try and help honest gun owners traveling thru enemy territory not get screwed.
 
Ome of the biggest threats to this bill's passage is probably the delisting of wolves. It's been a long fight with eco-warriors and they always try to pull some technicality to prevent it from going through.
 
Ome of the biggest threats to this bill's passage is probably the delisting of wolves. It's been a long fight with eco-warriors and they always try to pull some technicality to prevent it from going through.
Yeah, but from my point of view delisting wolves is not something I would go to the mat over. Now, if I was a rancher in Montana I might feel different, but the wolves have nothing to do with 2nd amendment rights. If they have to negotiate that away to get the rest passed, well, I suspect there will be a lot of ranchers in Montana with suppressors.
 
Removing the suppressor infringement is a big positive for the 2A.
 
The act that actually diminished our Second Amendment-protected Rights?

If it expands and clarifies the safe passage part that will be good.

If it reverses the de listing of new machine guns that would be better. :D Yeah, probably not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SPM
Army CoE land is a big deal here in the Triangle. Currently, Falls Lake, Jordan Lake, and Kerr Lake are gun-free zones, including those state parks, because they are built on land owned by CoE.
 
I'm excited but quite skeptical at the same time.

Rather ironic and quite unfortunate that this gets moving yesterday and we had another school shooting.
 
Sounds like to me that there's something in there for everyone. Ranges on public land (BLM) (and I don't mean Black Lives Matter) If any of you guys have lived out west you know that almost any open land is BLM controlled so I read this as a very good thing for hunters, fishermen AND shooters. I'll agree there's not much in there for the self defense/2A crowd but we have to take back our rights, one brick at a time, the same way they were taken away....

I have an idea! Since we have a Republican led House and Senate and Trump as President why don't they just pass a bill that sells a whole bunch of that private land back to private people? Heck, maybe sell some to people that want to start businesses and build gun ranges. Then we won't need to beg permission from whatever jerk is in power to use the land. And the proceeds can be used for Hillary's, Comey's and Lynch's trials.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but from my point of view delisting wolves is not something I would go to the mat over. Now, if I was a rancher in Montana I might feel different, but the wolves have nothing to do with 2nd amendment rights. If they have to negotiate that away to get the rest passed, well, I suspect there will be a lot of ranchers in Montana with suppressors.
I don't disagree. Just commenting on the current state of the bill.
 
I don't disagree. Just commenting on the current state of the bill.
Oh, I know. You were making a good point about how things can get sidetracked in the legislative process. It really is a "don't count your chickens" situation.
 
Here is a tweet I saw online from the great HRC.

Hillary Clinton

✔@HillaryClinton

The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots.

Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.
Imagine if Hillary had a silencer on her snout - we wouldn't have to listen to her stupidity anymore
 
Last edited:
Imagine if Hillary had a silencer on her snout - we wouldn't have to listen to her stupidity anymore
I could file a Form 1 for that and figure out a solution pretty easily. :D

Writing the "reason" on the form may be even more entertaining.
 
http://www.wral.com/dems-push-for-gun-safety-bills-gop-legislation-in-limbo/16990472/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/03/gop-leader-says-nra-backed-bill-shelved-indefinitely.html

"WASHINGTON — House Republican leaders called for unity and prayer Tuesday after the deadly mass shooting in Las Vegas, but offered no new legislation to tighten gun laws and said a bill to ease regulations on gun silencers would be shelved indefinitely.

"We are all reeling from this horror in Las Vegas," Speaker Paul Ryan said at a news conference. "This is just awful."

Ryan said there's no plan for the House to act soon on a National Rifle Association-backed bill to ease regulations on gun silencers. A House panel had backed the bill last month and lawmakers were expected to move ahead on the measure.

The bill is "not scheduled right now. I don't know when it will be scheduled," Ryan said."
 
Last edited:
I Knew that bill would not happen when i heard about the shooting
It wasn't going to happen anyway. As @gc70 pointed out in another thread, it requires 60 votes in the Senate, so you needed a decent chunk of Democratic senators to vote in favor, which is impossible given how far left the Dems have moved over the years.

What really got shelved is House passage, which would have been merely symbolic given the impossibility of Senate passage.

So it's not so much that the Republicans are vaginas (though certainly some are), but that there aren't enough of them relative to Democrats.
 
Last edited:
It would have been a waste of time to vote on the bill in the House when it has no chance of passage in the Senate.

But I doubt Ryan shed a tear that the bill is on ice.
 
Back
Top Bottom